President Musk Kills Stopgap Spending Bill

By the time you read this, the federal government will be 30-40 hours from shutting down, as the budget is set to run out at 12:01 a.m. Saturday morning. Congress and the White House were both getting their ducks lined up, so as to kick the can down the road until March. But those ducks have now gone the way of the dodo.

What fly got into the ointment (if we may continue our use of animalian metaphors)? A 6-foot-tall fly from South Africa is the answer. Here is a rough approximation of yesterday's episode of As the Budget Turns:

1. Around 4:00 a.m. ET: Elon Musk, co-leader of the DOGE pseudo-department, gets his hands on the budget resolution. He and his fellow DOGE co-leader, Vivek Ramaswamy, commence carping about the resolution on eX-Twitter.
   
   
2. Around 10:00 a.m. ET: Presumably having slept on it, Musk gets back on eX-Twitter and starts to run wild. He would ultimately send out over 100 tweets intended to bring the resolution down by putting pressure on Republican members of the House. The main threat made against them is also Trump's favorite: If you support this bill, you are at risk of getting primaried.
   
   We should note, incidentally, that Musk has something of a point that a 1,500-page bill, filled with goodies, is a little more than just "kicking the can down the road." However, that point was apparently not so strong that Musk could remain in the realm of truth in order to make it. Instead, he put forth lie after lie about what the bill actually says, so as to whip his followers into a lather.
   
   
3. Around Noon ET: Republican House members begin announcing their defections, with Musk egging them on, congratulating each member as they declare their opposition to the bill.
   
   
4. Around 1:00 p.m. ET: Grasping which way the wind is blowing, Donald Trump comes out against the bill, and declares that Republican members of the House better not support it.
   
   
5. Around 3:30 p.m. ET: J.D. Vance also grasps which way the wind is blowing, and comes out against the bill. At this point, all three men—Musk, Trump and Vance—make clear that any House member who defies them may be doing so at risk to their career.
   
   
6. Around 4:30 p.m. ET: Trump and Vance put out a joint statement in which they lay out their demands: (1) money for farmers, (2) money for disaster relief, (3) no "Democrat giveaways," and (4) an increase in the debt ceiling.
   
   
7. Around 5:00 p.m. ET: Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) halts forward movement on the spending bill, at least temporarily.

It is not clear, at the moment, what the next steps are for Johnson. He could try to keep moving forward with the current bill, once there's been 10-12 hours of "cooling off," but he probably won't get many Republican votes. And if he passes something with mostly Democratic votes, well, he's already being slammed as a RINO in right-wing circles, and his continued service as speaker is being called into question. Turning his back on (most of) the GOP could very well be the final nail in the coffin.

Alternatively, Johnson could try to renegotiate on the fly, and to come up with something that passes muster with Musk, Trump and Vance, but that is also acceptable to Democrats. Those three men might enjoy waving their... whatever around, and demanding that the Democrats give everything and get nothing, but that's not how this works. It's still a Democratic Senate and it's still a Democratic president for another 32 days, and the blue team is not going to help the Republicans out of their newly created mess, nor take ownership of the latest debt ceiling increase, without getting something out of it. Maybe disaster relief is enough for them, but probably not.

Johnson could also shoot for a clean resolution that merely continues funding at current levels. Whether the Democrats would support that is an excellent question, since they really want disaster funding. If this is the path that Johnson chooses, then Republicans will get to own everything once the can-kicking runs out. If on, say, March 15, the government gets shut down, or the debt ceiling is increased, or some popular program gets cut, or the stock market tanks, then it will happen on the watch of an all-Republican-led government, while the Democrats sit back and watch and enjoy their popcorn.

Finally, Johnson could throw up his arms and let the government shut down. Musk spent much time on eX-Twitter yesterday declaring that would not be such a bad thing, and that the government could just stay shut down for the next month, since essential services would still be paid for. The problem here is that there are still non-essential services that are actually still pretty essential. Many federal employees, including members of the military, would go without paychecks. It would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to get an emergency passport. Consulates and embassies would largely shut down. National parks and museums would be shuttered, which would surely ruin at least some people's holiday plans. And then, the backlog created by people not working would have to be cleared, often by people working overtime. The result is that the government would end up spending all the money it would have spent had it stayed open, plus a bunch more on top of that. During the last lengthy shutdown (also instigated by Donald Trump, incidentally), the cost to the federal government was about $3 billion. And inasmuch as there wasn't likely to be a shutdown, until the GOP Cerberus waded in, then the Republicans would surely get the blame for everything.

That includes not just the governmental impact, but also the broader economic impact, since the markets DO NOT LIKE uncertainty, instability and arbitrariness. In general, whenever anything notable happens in the market, there are a whole bunch of stories pairing the market's behavior with whatever the big news story of the day is. For example:

• Market up sharply on news McDonalds will bring back the McRib
• Dow Jones falters due to mysterious drones in the skies above New Jersey
• Stocks surge after Denzel Washington accidentally leaks news of Black Panther sequel
• NASDAQ way down due to poor sales of penile implants for pigs

We're never sure if there's any real basis for the correlations the financial press draws, or if they are just making their best guess. What we do know, however, is that the Dow Jones has been down 10 days in a row; that's the first time that's happened in 50 years. We also know that the daily declines were pretty small until yesterday, when the fed cut rates, but said that might be it for a while, which produced a rather more substantial 1,100 point drop. We think it's a fair supposition that the market's shaky performance (which, mind you, was mostly in Dow Jones companies, and not NASDAQ or S&P 500 companies, at least not until yesterday) is at least partly a response to Trumponomics.

Oh, and speaking of markets, the betting markets have been following recent events with great interest. At the start of the day yesterday, the average "chance of a shutdown," across the books that allow such a bet, was around 10%. By the end of the day yesterday, it was approaching 50%. By the end of the day today, it could be in the 70s or 80s.

In short, there could be a shutdown, there could not be a shutdown... we have no idea. And we would guess that the folks on The Hill don't know much better than we do, since there are now so many moving pieces here. Not only does a spending bill have to placate both chambers of Congress, it also has to be acceptable to two presidents, one current, one future. Oh, and it probably also has to have buy-in from the most powerful man in the land.

Indeed, even once the budgetary issues are resolved, yesterday's revelations about power dynamics will continue to reverberate. It has not escaped anyone's attention that, in effect, Elon Musk said "jump" and Donald Trump said "How high?" Democrats, in particular, had some fun with it, referring to the President-elect as "Vice President Trump."

The thing is, there's definitely something to this. In general, Trump has surrounded himself with people who effectively become powerless and irrelevant the moment they are cut off from the Trump teat. Think of Rudy Giuliani, or Roger Stone, or Steve Bannon, or John Bolton, or Michael Flynn. Exactly how relevant were they (or how relevant would they be) upon being cast out of paradise by the Dear Leader?

By contrast, Trump has never hitched his wagon to someone like Musk, a person who has his own power base. From a financial perspective, the South African leaves the New Yorker in the dust. Trump has to shake down media outlets and petroleum companies for a million here, a million there. He has to hawk cheesy Bibles and golden shoes and phony cryptocurrency, and even then, Musk can outspend him 10-to-1 or 20-to-1 or 50-to-1 without batting an eye. There are something like 60 House seats that are actually competitive; Musk could easily set up a super PAC for each one and endow that PAC with $20 million, and he wouldn't even miss the money.

Meanwhile, by virtue of owning eX-Twitter, Musk commands a media platform that probably grants him a louder voice than even Rupert Murdoch and Fox. First, eX-Twitter reaches far more people than Fox does, and it's not even close. Second, Rupert Murdoch does not go on his own airwaves and create content. Musk, by contrast, does. And he doesn't have to answer to advertisers or stockholders in any meaningful way. He's also considerably less constrained by the laws about defamation.

Add it up, and Musk is in a position to put the screws to a misbehaving representative—or a misbehaving president—in a manner that is simply unparalleled. There was a time when we suspected Trump would get sick of Musk, and would push the South African aside. Now, however, we're not sure that's possible. Trump may have no choice but to kowtow to Musk, for fear of being targeted by the Twitter flamethrower and a fortune that is rapidly approaching $500 billion.

On top of this, there are also the power dynamics of the speakership going forward. Does Mike Johnson now answer to two masters? Or perhaps three? Is it going to be possible to navigate this particular nightmare before Christmas? And even if he does, what happens when it's time to hammer out an actual budget, by which time the Freedom Caucus (and other House factions), Trump, Vance, and Musk will all be feeling their oats? Does the Speaker even want to try to deal with this, or will he throw in the towel in disgust, the way the last three Republican speakers have done? And if he does decide he wants to keep his job, will he be able to do so? Keeping in mind that he can only afford one defection, there is much talk that he doesn't have the votes to be reelected speaker on Jan. 3. We guess it depends on what Elon Musk wants.

So, it was a pretty momentous day yesterday. Oh, and also a pretty good reminder/preview of what another 4 years of Donald Trump as president is going to be like. (Z)

Gaetz Is a Loser

"Tell me something I don't know," you're saying. No, no, we're not making a general judgment about the former representative (accurate as it might be); we are talking about his battle to keep the House Ethics Committee report under wraps. Previously, the Committee members voted not to release it. But yesterday, they changed course. Barring the unexpected, it will be released sometime this week, perhaps as early as today.

Gaetz responded to this news by firing up his eX-Twitter account to post this:

The Biden/Garland DOJ spent years reviewing allegations that I committed various crimes.

I was charged with nothing: FULLY EXONERATED. Not even a campaign finance violation. And the people investigating me hated me.

Then, the very "witnesses" DOJ deemed not-credible were assembled by House Ethics to repeat their claims absent any cross-examination or challenge from me or my attorneys. I've had no chance to ever confront any accusers. I've never been charged. I've never been sued.

Instead, House Ethics will reportedly post a report online that I have no opportunity to debate or rebut as a former member of the body.

In my single days, I often sent funds to women I dated—even some I never dated but who asked. I dated several of these women for years. I NEVER had sexual contact with someone under 18. Any claim that I have would be destroyed in court—which is why no such claim was ever made in court.

My 30's were an era of working very hard—and playing hard too.

It's embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have earlier in life. I live a different life now.

But at least I didn't vote for CR's that fuck over the country!

As a reminder, when a politician says or writes something publicly, we don't censor it.

We must admit that when we saw this "defense," we were reminded of students who are accused of cheating on an online quiz and, instead of pleading innocence, ask "Well, which questions do you think I cheated on, exactly?" That does not help the student's case. Similarly, once the report is released, it's clearly going to include information that strongly indicates: (1) hiring of many prostitutes, and (2) sex with underage women. These things were already rumored, and Gaetz' response pretty much seals the deal.

Since the House Ethics Committee conducts all of its business in secret, particularly its votes, nobody beyond the Committee members knows why they changed their minds. What we can say is that there are five Republicans and five Democrats, and they previously deadlocked on releasing the report. So, the likeliest explanation is that one of the five Republicans flipped, for reasons known only to them. In any event, the would-be Florida governor is about to have his dirty laundry aired in a very public fashion. (Z)

Ghosts of Presidents Past...

You know what Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush and Donald Trump have in common, besides having served as president? They all left office with an approval rating of 34%, as measured by Gallup. It looks like Joe Biden is about to join the club, as the new Marquette poll has his approval rating at... 34%. At least that's better than Harry S. Truman (32%) or Richard Nixon (24%).

On one hand, it's pretty clear that presidential approval ratings, particularly at the end of a president's term, aren't all that related to the president's actual performance in office. There is simply no world where Trump, Bush, Carter and Biden were equals as presidents, with all of them barely edging out Truman. On the other hand, late-term approval ratings are clearly a pretty good proxy for "Is the country on the right track?" and "Should we throw the bums out?" Every single one of these five low-approval presidents, whether they ran for reelection or not, saw their party lose the White House at the next election. This is worth keeping in mind if we get to the end of Trump's term and he's mired in the 30s, yet again.

Meanwhile, what does Biden's future hold, approval-wise? We can only speculate, of course, but we can note that he's not being dragged down by gross corruption (like the three Republicans). Of course, he's also not likely to have time to rehabilitate himself as a beloved elder (like Carter and, to an extent, Nixon). Carter got started on his very successful post-presidency at the age of 56, while for Nixon it was age 61. Both of those are rather younger than Biden's current age of 82.

That leaves us with Truman. Because "rating" past presidents, whether by pollsters or by historians, was not much of a "thing" in the day of Harry S., we don't have a great picture of when and how his reputation bounced back from its presidential doldrums. All we know is that he left office very unpopular in 1953 and then, just under a decade later, historians rated him as the 8th best president in American history. He has consistently been between #5 and #9 ever since.

We don't know that Biden will quite reach Trumanesque heights, but he did get into the teens in the two scholars' polls that included him. Every president gets something of a bump once they leave office, and we suspect that some of the irritations that are hurting Biden now (waiting too long to drop out, Gaza, etc.) will fade, while his accomplishments will look pretty good in contrast to Trump v2.0. Again, this is all speculation, although speculation from someone who's been following presidential rankings pretty closely for nearly four decades. (Z)

...And Presidents Future

We had an item on Tuesday about Kamala Harris' future, and whether she'll try for the presidency again, or if she will "settle" for the governorship of California as the capstone of her political career.

Yesterday, Politico had a story about how the members of the DNC are definitely open to the idea. Some of them are overtly supportive, while others are noncommittal. None of them are an outright "no," which, admittedly, may or may not be instructive. That is to say, the next election is nearly 4 years away, which is many, many lifetimes in politics. Anyone savvy enough to end up on the DNC is savvy enough not to show their cards right now, until the lay of the land is much clearer.

In any event, we pass this along because some people, among them Kamala Harris, obviously think she might be able to make another run. And to that end, we need to start prepping for our planned series on potential Democratic presidential candidates, which will commence in January. We will eventually do the Republicans, too, but will probably have to wait longer on that, because it's a little harder to know who will, and will not, still be standing in 2-3 years.

About a month ago, we asked readers to help us compile a list of potential Democratic candidates. Here, in alphabetical order, are the 60 names that exercise produced (we included everyone who was nominated by at least three readers):

State Rep. Stacey Abrams (D-GA) Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg (MI) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (NY) Actor George Clooney (CA) Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC) Businessman Mark Cuban (TX) Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) Gov. Tony Evers (D-WI) UAW President Shawn Fain (IN) Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) Sen. Al Franken (DFL-MN) Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) Actor Tom Hanks (CA) Vice President Kamala Harris (CA) Gov. Maura Healey (D-MA) Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) Actor Dwayne Johnson (FL) Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) Gov. Laura Kelly (D-KS) Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) Coach Steve Kerr (CA) Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D-New Orleans)

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) State Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-MI) Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ) Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Labor leader Dan Osborn (NE) Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo (RI) Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) Adm. James G. Stavridis (FL) Gov. Josh Stein (D-NC) Actor Jon Stewart (NY) Musician Taylor Swift (TN) Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI)

And now, we must ask for your help again. Here's a ballot where you can choose (up to) 10 candidates you think are most likely to get the Democratic nomination (with 1 being very most likely) and (up to) 10 candidates you would most like to be the nominee (with 1 being the one you want the very most). These votes will determine the order in which we write up the candidates next year. (Z)

Legal Matters, Part I: Time for a Media Defense Fund?

At this point, everyone is in on the secret that Donald Trump has discovered, and exploited: Most major news outlets are minor, and not very profitable, elements of vast corporate portfolios. The tycoons/corporate boards that manage these news operations might be willing to do a public service, but they are not willing to put their corporate bottom lines in jeopardy.

Consider this list of, arguably, the ten most important outlets for news (especially political news):

Outlet	Medium	Ownership	Assets
NBC	Broadcast TV	Comcast	$264.8 billion
ABC	Broadcast TV	The Walt Disney Company	$196.2 billion
CBS	Broadcast TV	Paramount Global	$90.5 billion
CNN	Cable TV	Warner Bros. Discovery	$122.8 billion
MSNBC	Cable TV	Comcast (for now)	$264.8 billion
Fox	Cable TV	Fox Corporation	$21.97 billion
The New York Times	Newspaper	The New York Times Company	$2.71 billion
The Wall Street Journal	Newspaper	News Corporation	$16.7 billion
The Washington Post	Newspaper	Jeff Bezos/Nash Holdings	$244.2 billion
The Los Angeles Times	Newspaper	Patrick Soon-Shiong/Nant Capital	$5.8 billion

It's not a pretty picture. You have six news concerns that are part of corporate behemoths with a value of $90 billion or more, and a seventh (The Los Angeles Times) owned by a man who has clearly shown he will kowtow to Trump as much as is necessary. Two more news concerns (Fox, The Wall Street Journal) are in the business of promoting Trump and Trumpism. That means that the best hope, among the big-time media outlets, is The New York Times. And everyone knows about the many and varied concerns the Times' coverage has raised over the past decade.

This leaves smaller concerns—podcasters, small-to-medium newspapers, blogs, writers on Substack/beehiiv/etc.—to carry the banner, and to make sure that democracy does not die in darkness. Trump thinks he's cracked this riddle, too. As everyone knows by now, he's dusted off an oldie but a goodie from his bag of tricks, and filed a nuisance lawsuit against The Des Moines Register and Ann Selzer. His thinking is that he can afford to blow a few million on legal fees, and his opponents can't, so he'll beat them into submission.

We are not exactly sure that Trump will be able to pull off what he's trying to pull off here. That is to say, his lawsuit is so obviously without merit, and is so clearly an abuse of process, that we would think Selzer/the Register would be able to win on summary judgment. Even if Trump could prove that the last Selzer poll was deliberately falsified (which he cannot do, since it was not), his argument for damages is ridiculous. If the Trump campaign actually spent extra money in Iowa because they feared losing, that's on them. They could have (and presumably did) run their own polls, and they could have (and presumably did) look at non-Selzer polls of Iowa.

Maybe we are wrong about how easily (and thus, how cheaply) Selzer/the Register will win. Even if we are not, Trump and his lawyers are not going to stop with just one nuisance suit. And the next time, or maybe the time after that, or maybe the time after that, they are going to find a cause of action that is not so easily dismissed. And the unlucky person named as defendant in that suit is going to have big-time legal bills, even if they are in the right.

Consequently, there are currently preliminary rumblings about the formation of some sort of consortium in which various small and medium media outlets would pool funds, for any member who is sued to draw upon. The basic argument is that any person or outlet unlucky enough to end up with a target on their backs isn't just fighting for themselves, but instead for the whole media establishment.

We shall see if anything comes of this; at the moment, there isn't even a formal fundraising effort for Selzer/the Register, much less "all political media." That said, there is obviously some merit in the notion, and similar arrangements have been made for investigative reporters. And while it's not our money, this also seems like the sort of thing that maybe a Jeff Bezos or a Patrick Soon-Shiong ought to support, perhaps via a shell corporation. Failing that, maybe one of the left-leaning, non-media billionaires might ride to the rescue; a $100 million endowment is a relative pittance for Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or Mackenzie Scott. (Z)

Legal Matters, Part II: Can a Texas Court Exercise Jurisdiction over a New York Doctor?

And note that, by "New York doctor," we mean "New York doctor who has never set foot in the state of Texas."

You see, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued a New York physician, Dr. Margaret Carpenter, for allegedly violating Texas law in prescribing medication for an abortion via telehealth to a Texas resident. The complaint seeks injunctive and monetary relief (statutory damages of $100,000 per violation) and alleges that Dr. Carpenter was practicing medicine in Texas without a license and performing an abortion in violation of Texas law. As a reminder, the FDA authorizes telehealth for a medication abortion.

New York's shield law offers meaningful protections for doctors who provide medication for abortions to residents in states with abortion bans. For example, witnesses can't be compelled to testify in these cases, courts are prohibited from issuing subpoenas related to these proceedings, and discovery is severely restricted. It also authorizes a countersuit for damages and attorneys' fees. New York AG Letitia James had some choice words for Paxton in response to the suit: "We will always protect our providers from unjust attempts to punish them for doing their job and we will never cower in the face of intimidation or threats."

The bigger question, though, is more fundamental: Can a Texas court exercise personal jurisdiction over a New York doctor who has never set foot in the state, does not practice medicine in the state and did not solicit any patients there? The answer should be no. On jurisdiction, the complaint states: Dr. Carpenter "contracted by mail or otherwise with a resident in Collin County, Texas with performance in whole or in part in Texas." That is an awfully thin reed on which to assert personal jurisdiction over a New York physician, and, if upheld, has wide-ranging implications for all kinds of services, medical and otherwise. If prescribing a pill subjects out-of-state physicians to Texas' judicial processes (and Texas medical licensing requirements), that would upend much more than just abortion care (online viagra, anyone?). And from there, it's a hop, skip and a jump to many other cans of worms where actions in one state, and laws in another, come into conflict.

There's a little case called International Shoe from 1945 that this site's lawyer-readers were subjected to as 1L's, which is the seminal Supreme Court case on when a non-resident can be subject to a state's judicial processes. The upshot is that one must have affirmatively sought out the benefits and protections of the state's laws to be subject to its jurisdiction. The focus is not on the location of the alleged injury—in this case, where the abortion occurred—but on whether the doctor has any meaningful connections to the forum. As recently as 2011, in J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts held that a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a corporation whose product merely ended up in the state without any other efforts by the company to market its wares there. That sounds a lot like the situation here. No doubt the Texas woman found Dr. Carpenter online through the organization Aid Access, and reached out to make an appointment. That the woman happens to live in Texas should not be sufficient under International Shoe and J. McIntyre to subject Dr. Carpenter to Texas' unique brand of justice.

The remaining issue is even more troubling: How did this come to Paxton's attention in the first place? The woman is not involved in this suit; she chose to have an abortion and there is no evidence that the medication she took was anything other than safe and effective. The complaint offers no evidence of any injury to the woman, only that she went to the emergency room. And simply going to the ER to determine whether things are proceeding normally is not a "complication." Instead, it appears the woman's boyfriend suspected she had an abortion and reported her to the authorities. This behavior, and the state's response, only highlights the need for a national policy—abusive relationships thrive under these draconian and dangerous laws.

Paxton surely knows his lawsuit is frivolous, but that isn't the point. The point is to scare both women and doctors and to drive women further underground. This will lead to more deaths, but that doesn't concern Paxton, whose state's maternal mortality committee is refusing to examine any data on deaths from the last 2 years. Paxton loves the publicity and scoring political points off vulnerable women is his bread and butter (as opposed to corporate polluters, who get a pass). But that will keep national attention on the problem of states reaching beyond their borders to impose their rules on states where abortion is protected. This will throw some sand into the gears of Donald Trump's plan to dodge the issue by punting to the states. No doubt this will come up a time or two in the midterms. (L)

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, Day 12: Obamas' Christmas Cards

And now we have potential Christmas cards for the Obamas:

• C.C. in New York City, NY: Time to break out the "anger translator" again...
  
  
  
  
• R.B. in Santa Monica, CA: Beware of Greeks Republicans bearing gifts:
  
  
  
  
• M.B. in Los Angeles, CA: Mmmmm Hmmmm....
  
  
  
  
• J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL: The Obamas being the only sane people on your list, I think they would probably send out a holiday card that looked something like this:
  
  
  
  
• B.F. in Phoenix, AZ: Where did I go wrong?
  
  
  
  
• M.G. in Weymouth, MA:
  
  

Tomorrow, bringing up the rear, it will be Robert F. Kennedy Jr. If you have a last-minute suggestion, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com.

And here's the question for next week: Select any political figure, and tell us what you think their favorite holiday movie is, and why. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger